Justices affirm resentencing of man to 10 years in prison

The CNMI Supreme Court has affirmed the maximum 10-year prison term that Superior Court Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho imposed on a 27-year-old man who sexually abused a girl since she was only 6 years old on Tinian.

In its order last Friday, the high court, however, granted Anthony Herrera Borja’s petition for rehearing of their (high court) decision with respect to the parole eligibility restriction issue.

In their order, Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro and associate justices John A. Manglona and Perry B. Inos reconsidered their earlier decision and agreed with Camacho’s ruling that Borja is eligible for parole after six years in prison.

Castro, Manglona, and Inos said they find that Camacho did not commit plain error and did not abuse his discretion in justifying Borja’s parole eligibility restriction.

The justices said there was no procedural error in Camacho’s justification, such as reliance on an impermissible aggravating factor.

Further, the justices said, Camacho carefully considered when the victim would reach the age of majority to determine Borja’s parole eligibility.

“We find this a proper justification and do not perceive the restriction as substantively unreasonable,” the justices said.

According to court records, in 2012, the Office of the Attorney General charged Borja with sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, indecent exposure in the first degree, and two counts of disturbing the peace.

In 2013, the OAG and Borja entered into a plea agreement. He pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. Camacho then sentenced him to 10 years in prison.

Borja appealed to the CNMI Supreme Court.

In 2015, the high court vacated his 10-year sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing.

In vacating the sentence, the high court noted that the sentence was not individualized enough to Borja’s case.

In June 2017, Camacho resentenced Borja to the maximum 10-year prison term but said he is eligible for parole after six years.

The 10-year prison term is the same sentence that Camacho previously imposed on Borja. The difference is that the new sentence allowed the defendant to be eligible for parole after serving six years.

In 2018, Borja appealed his sentence again to the high court.

Borja argued that his sentence was not sufficiently individualized, the restriction on parole was not properly justified, and the case should be remanded to a different judge for resentencing.

In December 2018, the high court affirmed Borja’s 10-year sentence, but remanded the case to cure a defect restricting his parole eligibility.

The justices ruled that because the parole statute requires Borja to serve at least six years and eight months to be eligible for parole, the six-year restriction impermissibly restricted his parole eligibility below the minimum parole prescribed by law.

The justices said because the prison term was affirmed and remanded only to correct the parole eligibility defect, the high court declined to review Borja’s request to remand the case to a different judge.

Borja, through assistant public defender Nancy A. Dominski, however, filed a petition for rehearing.

Dominski argued that the record is inadequate to demonstrate a sufficiently individualized sentence and that the high court’s determinations concerning Borja’s parole eligibility are unfounded.

In their order Friday granting Borja’s petition for rehearing, the justices ruled that their review of the record does not suggest Camacho failed to weigh factors at all, but rather examined and measured the factors he found to be the most pertinent.

The justices said to the extent that Borja maintains the sentence is not individualized is not grounds for reconsideration as this is just a recital of an argument already heard and decided on appeal.

On his parole eligibility issue, the justices granted Borja’s petition for a rehearing and reconsidered their previous statements concerning his parole restriction.

The justices said they write to clarify that Public Law 12-82 and 12-41—the provisions prior to the current statutes—determine the maximum sentence Borja may serve and when he would be eligible for parole.

In 2012, Borja was charged with multiple offenses, including sexual abuse.

Under Public Law 12-82, the justices said, the maximum penalty for the crime of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree is 10 years’ imprisonment.

The justices said the law did not impose a mandatory minimum sentence a defendant must serve.

Under to Public Law 12-41, the justice said, Borja is eligible for parole after serving one-third of his unsuspended prison sentence. Borja’s unsuspended sentence is 10 years.

Without further restriction, the justices said, Borja would be eligible for parole after serving three years and four months.

The justices said because Borja’s eligibility for parole was restricted greater than what was lawfully required, they must determine whether the sentencing judge properly justified the parole discretion.

The justices said Camacho considered a number of factors in restricting parole eligibility.

In particular, the justices said, Camacho reasoned that restricting eligibility for parole until the victim reached the age of majority would allow the victim to make a more informed decision on her relationship with Borja.

The justices said Camacho considered the victim’s statement that she did not feel adversely affected by Borja’s conduct as well as Borja’s young age at the time of the offense (18 years old).

Ultimately, the justices said, Camacho determined that six years was sufficient time to offset any potential danger to the victim.

Assistant attorney general Jonathan Glass Jr., appeared as counsel for the government.